Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: A325 Anchor rods?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
From the ASTM A325 spec.

1.4 This specification is applicable to heavy hex structural
bolts only. For bolts of other configurations and thread lengths
with similar mechanical properties, see Specification A 449.

There are material requirements contained in the A325 spec. but the A325 is not a material spec.

Harold Sprague

From: "dave lowen" <jatech(--nospam--at)>
Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)>
Subject: RE: A325 Anchor rods?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:21:13 -0500

I have always understood that ASTM A325 IS a material spec. used for the
manufacture of bolts.


-----Original Message-----
From: Harold Sprague [mailto:spraguehope(--nospam--at)]
Sent: March 28, 2006 1:16 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: A325 Anchor rods?

ASTM A325 is a bolt specification and not a bolt MATERIAL specification. As

such it is limited to a maximum diameter of 1 1/2 inch and manufacturers
will make them up to a maximum of 6 inches in length unless there is a
special order.

A325 bolts are manufactured to the dimensions in ANSI  B18.2.1 and as such
will only have a maximum thread length of 2.25 inches for a 1 1/2 inch
diameter bolt. This, too, is generally inadequate for structural anchor rod

purposes. An A325 T bolt can be specified which will have threads along the

entire shaft, but it is generally a special order.

I have heard of longer "A325" bolts, but the manufacturers will hot head the

bolts which is not a good thing to do for an anchor rod in tension.  The
process creates a weak point at the head to shaft intersection.

Unfortunately specifying A325 anchor bolts is a very common error on the
part of engineers.

Some years ago I observed that one of the tallest buildings in Los Angeles
had 4 inch diameter A325 anchor bolts specified.  It is a common error.

In answer to your specific questions:
>Is A325 another valid option for anchor rods? No
>Have I just learned something new? No
>Have you come across this specification for anchor
>rods any time in the past? Unfortunately yes.

Feel free to forward my e-mail to the structural engineer.  You just saved
him from a lurking lawyer just waiting to pounce.

Harold Sprague

>From: G Vishwanath <gvshwnth(--nospam--at)>
>Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)>
>To: steel steel <steel-detail(--nospam--at)>, seaint(--nospam--at)
>Subject: A325 Anchor rods?
>Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:30:53 -0800 (PST)
>I have come across  A307, A36 and F1554 as specs for
>Anchor rods.
>The structural dwg in a current project indicates
>A325 for anchor rods.
>I presumed it was a slip but still indicated A325 in
>the AB dwg, clouded it and asked for verification.
>I also sent a mail to our fabricator on this subject.
>The engineer has confirmed A325 for Anchor bolts while
>commenting on our dwg.
>Is A325 another valid option for anchor rods?
>Have I just learned something new?
>Have you come across this specification for anchor
>rods any time in the past?

FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now!

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
* * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********